Standing Committee B

[Dame Marion Roe in the Chair]

Children Bill [Lords]

Clause 9 - Information databases

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 109, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 43, leave out paragraph (g).—[Mrs. Brooke.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 37, in
clause 9, page 7, line 43, leave out from 'of' to end of line 44 and insert 
 'concern for his welfare, such basis for concern having been set out in national guidance'. 
No. 225, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 44, at end insert— 
 '(ga) details of the person (''the informant'') who has provided information in accordance with subsection (6)(b) or (c);'. 
No. 190, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 45, leave out paragraph (h). 
No. 218, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 47, at end insert— 
 '( ) In this section a ''cause for concern'' shall not include any matter internal to the child's family unless the informant has reasonable cause to believe that a crime may be or may have been committed.'. 
No. 219, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 47, at end insert— 
 '(4A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (1) to (4) must provide that— 
 (a) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, the person making the disclosure must notify the person about whom the disclosure is made of the information being disclosed, and provide them with a copy of it; and 
 (b) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, and the information relates to a child, the person making the disclosure must notify— 
 (i) the child if he is of sufficient maturity, and 
 (ii) his parent, carer and anyone with parental responsibility of the information, 
 and provide each of these persons with a copy of it.'. 
No. 223, in 
clause 9, page 7, line 47, at end insert— 
 '(4A) In this section a ''cause for concern'' shall not include any matter internal to a school, youth club or voluntary organisation unless the informant has reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been or may be committed.'. 
No. 224, in 
clause 9, page 8, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(6A) Nothing in this section shall entitle any person to any information about the cause for concern other than information of the kinds described in subsection (4).'. 
 No. 226, in 
clause 9, page 9, line 6, at end insert— 
 '(12A) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State under subsections (1) to (4) must provide that— 
 (a) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, the person making the disclosure must notify the person about whom the disclosure is made of the information being disclosed, and provide them with a copy of it; and 
 (b) where information recorded on any such database is disclosed to another person, and the information relates to a child, the person making the disclosure must notify— 
 (i) the child if he is of sufficient maturity, and 
 (ii) his parents, carer and anyone with parental responsibility 
 of the information and provide each with a copy thereof.'.

Tim Loughton: This is the last leg—what a shame. I was speaking to amendment No. 37 and had just taken the point from the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) about having central guidance. I certainly do not want the Government to impose guidance. I wish the professions to decide on the most appropriate guidance for practitioners in the field to trigger the cause for concern, whatever it will be called, to take their concerns to a higher level. I hope that there would be collaboration between the different bodies of professionals so that they do not operate from entirely different thresholds at a local level.

Nick Palmer: I agree that there is an issue about professionals operating at different thresholds. I doubt whether it is possible to solve that problem with guidelines from the national professional bodies. If the hon. Gentleman talks to teachers, social workers and others, they will tell him that either the guidelines will have to be so incredibly detailed that they will be impossible to draw up with any precision, or they will too broad to be useful in individual cases. Basically, professionals want to make these judgments themselves. If we try to impose guidelines either from the Government or from the professional bodies we will have difficulties.

Tim Loughton: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The trouble is that, in the absence of guidelines, there is no guarantee that a GP in his constituency will not operate to a set of values and thresholds that may result in his referring to child protection issues, not because he has not seen any, but because he does not think that they trigger the cause for concern criteria. A GP in my constituency might do the complete opposite.
 I should like to know what steps have been taken. Surely these are key bodies in the operation of all these measures in the Bill. That is the point of amendment No. 37. We are unhappy with the cause of concern criteria, but I am trying to put in a replacement. [Interruption.] The Minister is having a bit of a fit at the moment although not at my amendment I hasten to add. We want to be constructive so that we can improve what is already there. 
 Finally, I want to touch on a couple of the amendments in the name of my lamented Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). His name has cropped up rather more today than when he is present. 
 Amendment No. 225 would add details on the database about who provided the information. This is an interesting point. Surely there needs to be some means of checking the source and therefore the veracity of the information that is being provided and, perhaps more importantly, for that person to be held accountable if the information turns out to be inaccurate or vexatious at a later stage. Amendment No. 224 clarifies what Ministers have been saying: details of the cause for concern should not be released to anyone not otherwise entitled to access it. It would be interesting to hear who the Government think should have that access.

Roger Williams: I should like to speak to amendment No. 219 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke). The Government seem determined to include any cause for concern in the Bill. The amendment probes what regulations the Minister sees as appropriate to safeguard children and young people whose information is recorded on the database and may be passed on to another person. Under the amendment, a child or young person would have the information that was being disclosed, so that they could check that it was accurate and appropriate. The amendment goes on to say that the child should be informed in the first place and, if they are not mature enough, the parent, guardian or anyone else with parental responsibility should have the opportunity to check the information.
 It seems to me that if ''cause for concern'' is not well defined, there will be too little information on the database to be of any use. Alternatively, there will be so much that people have no confidence in it. However, confidence that the database is appropriate, accurate and instrumental in looking after the well-being and welfare of children is important for the professionals using it, so it is not appropriate to include any cause for concern on the database.

Margaret Hodge: I shall bring this debate to a speedy conclusion, but if hon. Members feel that I have not touched on what they are interested in, perhaps they will indicate that to me. I shall preface my remarks by saying that all we are talking about is one tool, among many, to achieve better information sharing, because that will mean that people intervene earlier and more appropriately. We hope that, as a result, children will be better protected.
 Nothing that we are doing with the database or anything else detracts from or diminishes the importance of the professional judgment of all professionals who deal with children. We are not replacing the judgment of the professional with a bit of ICT; we are simply introducing a database, and all that goes with it, to support better decision making and better professional judgment. It is in that context that we are working. 
 Let me pick up on the issues that people have talked about in relation to cause for concern. We are not talking about a system whereby recording that a practitioner is concerned triggers action to address that concern. The practitioner still has the responsibility to take action and to take the initiative. Having cause for concern indicates nothing more or less than that. If I had cause for concern about a child with whom I worked, all that would be indicated would be that I had cause for concern. That would suggest that I felt that if another professional had a cause for concern, they should talk to me. We would want to share the information about the child so that, between us, we could come to a better decision as to the action that we should take. There would be no information on the system beyond the fact that a professional had cause for concern and wished to speak to other professionals about the issue. 
 Nothing in the clause changes the way in which common law applies to the decision that a practitioner makes about whether they can discuss a child's case with another practitioner. If a practitioner were approached by another practitioner, he or she would have to have regard to all data protection and confidentiality obligations before deciding to share the cause for concern with the other practitioner. 
 The indication of a concern enables a practitioner simply to signal to others who subsequently look at the child's record that they have a concern about the child at that time. That would prompt contact—that is all. Then the two practitioners could see whether their observations were related, and that would help them to build a better, early all-round picture of the child's needs. 
 The database will not hold the detail of what a practitioner is concerned about, so it will always be professional judgment that determines whether an individual practitioner is worried about an aspect of a child's life that others dealing with the child might need to know about. We do not propose a system whereby recording a concern prompts action on a child's case, so there is no need for a common threshold in that sense. It is not a referral mechanism, as current mechanisms are. It should prompt discussion, and that discussion will lead to decisions on action.

Hilton Dawson: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend makes that clarification. I hope that that will help local authorities to move away from what other hon. Members present will recognise as the Friday afternoon syndrome, in which other professionals—some of whom become very well known to social workers—clear their desks on Friday afternoon by offloading their anxieties about particular children over the weekend on to social services, without any hope or expectation that anything can be done about them. That is very poor practice.

Margaret Hodge: Finally, I shall deal briefly with two other matters. First, I agree that the information must be accurate, but to include the source of the information, as proposed in amendment No. 225,
 tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight, would be a bureaucratic nightmare. The identity of the person who raised the cause of concern would be included, but not the source of the complaint. For example, if a child's name and address was obtained from a health authority, the fact that the name and address was thus obtained would not need to be entered on to the database.
 Secondly, I understand, as do all hon. Members present, that practitioners need a clear understanding of what we want them to do. We will, of course, need to explain the detail in regulations and in guidance on how that aspect—the causes of concern—of the databases will work. That is why we are preparing the consultation paper and why we will subject the regulations to the affirmative procedure. We will take the public consultation exercise seriously; we want to hear what the professionals say and will have regard to that as we prepare the regulations for consideration by hon. Members. I hope that those final words of comfort will persuade hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her brevity. I do not mean that disparagingly, because she conveyed some important points despite that brevity. However, I do not feel reassured on some of my original objections to paragraphs (g) and (h) of subsection (4).
 First, we would feel more comfortable if it were not stated so definitively in the clause that there would be the opportunity to place flags of concern on the database. My reading of the clause is that that is definitive; it is not just a possibility that will be picked up later. That decision should be made after the evaluation of the trailblazers, and the big problem is that there will be a time lag in getting the evaluation results. 
 I was also not reassured by the Minister saying that the cause of concern would not be indicated in any detail. I accept the point, but I see flags all over the place, because that does not overcome the problem that anyone can feel a cause for concern on matters ranging from the minor to the most important. Over-cautious people might flag things up and others will think, ''I don't want to get involved in a lot of paperwork—I don't think I'll do that.'' There is such a great possibility of the flagging system going wrong that I cannot support it.

Margaret Hodge: Let me just provide some clarity. If I, as a professional, put a cause of concern on the data system, that will be because I have taken some action—it is not an excuse for inaction—and I feel that is important that another professional contacts me if they have causes of concern about a particular child. It is a false idea that a busy professional would put up thousands of flags of concern because they wanted thousands of other professionals to contact them to have conversations to decide what to do about the child. All the professionals are busy people; they will use those causes of concern appropriately, because otherwise they themselves will be overloaded with people contacting them about a child.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her intervention. As I said earlier, things could work either way, but we have no way of knowing, because we do not have the evaluation. We have heard time and again that everything is dependent on consultation before the full regulations are set out. It is difficult when we do not know what lies ahead and what is involved. There has been no further information since the Bill left the other place, and I hope that more information will be available before Report. It would help if we at least knew the terms in which the consultation will be framed and saw the documents before they were sent out.
 I am sure that the Minister accepts that I am not the only person raising those concerns, which worry many people throughout the country. I do not accept her argument, although I do not mean to be confrontational. We need to discuss the matter more fully on the Floor of the House, and I shall not divide the Committee on the amendment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in
clause 9, page 9, line 13, after 'advice', insert 'and training'.
 I can be very brief. Subsection (13)(e) of the clause refers to the need for advice on data protection. Training would fit in perfectly with that proposal, as a great deal of training will also be needed. The amendment would address some of my anxieties in that respect.

Margaret Hodge: The clause as drafted refers to the need for children and families to have advice so that they are aware of their rights under the Data Protection Act 1998. It is the professionals who work the system who would need training, and the clause is therefore not an appropriate place for the amendment. As I said earlier, I agree with the hon. Lady that training of professionals is important, but the clause is not the right place to specify it.

Annette Brooke: I have made my point; I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Loughton: I shall not detain the Committee. We have had a lengthy debate and received some useful information from the Government, although not nearly enough. However, I fear that there are still too many gaps in the Bill as drafted and too many question marks, and it would therefore not be right for the Committee to agree to the clause stand part. I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote against the clause with a view to returning to it on Report, when I hope the Government will greatly have improved the proposal. We may then be able to support it.
 As the Minister knows, I support databases in principle, but they should be properly quantified, qualified, manageable and practical databases that will actually work, and we have not been assured that they will work in their current form. I shall press clause stand part to a Division.

Annette Brooke: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's comments; there are still too many questions and not enough answers. Liberal Democrat Members have stated which proposals we strongly support. The Minister may suggest that we were dragged into it, but we have listened carefully to the arguments and worked them through logically. We accept many of the principles of the measure, and many of the Minister's reassurances. However, we still have many questions about what will actually happen—who has access, how long the data will be held and so on. Those questions were all raised in the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Any extra information that could be supplied between now and Report could only enhance the debate on the clause. I therefore also agree that we should vote against it at this point.
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 5.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 - Power to establish registration scheme in England

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in
clause 38, page 27, line 16, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
 '(1) It shall be the duty of every children's services authority in England in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State to establish and maintain a register of persons in their area suitable to foster children privately.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 74, in
clause 38, page 27, line 16, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 104, in
clause 38, page 27, line 19, at end insert— 
 '(1A) It shall be the duty of every local authority to keep a register of individuals in their area suitable to act as private foster parents for children. 
 (1B) A local authority may refuse to register an applicant for registration under subsection (1A) if it is satisfied that the applicant, or any person living in the applicant's household, is not fit to be in the proximity of children.'. 
No. 75, in 
clause 38, page 27, line 20, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 76, in 
clause 38, page 27, line 24, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 78, in 
clause 38, page 27, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 79, in 
clause 38, page 27, line 37, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 80, in 
clause 38, page 27, line 41, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 81, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 1, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 82, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 7, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 83, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 84, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 28, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 85, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 33, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 87, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 40, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 88, in 
clause 38, page 28, line 46, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 89, in 
clause 38, page 29, line 9, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 90, in 
clause 38, page 29, line 14, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. 
No. 91, in 
clause 38, page 29, line 28, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Annette Brooke: I was getting alarmed at the number of amendments in this group, thinking that I was not prepared. Now I realise why there is such a large number—it boils down to the change of one word. Amendment No. 94 calls for a compulsory registration scheme for private fostering. I appreciate that the Government have moved some way towards such an arrangement by trying to strengthen the notification scheme. That is absolutely essential, but most professionals ask: if it is a good idea for a few years' time, why not introduce it now?
 It is interesting to note that every report that the Government have commissioned in the past five years confirms that privately fostered children can be very vulnerable. A registration system involving the approval of private foster carers would protect their interests better than the current situation, under which private foster carers are required only to notify local authorities about arrangements. The reports include Sir William Utting's ''People like us: The review of safeguards for children living away from home'', which was commissioned in 1997 by the Prime Minister. That report referred to private fostering as a 
 potential honey pot for abusers. It was published all that time ago, and the many other reports published since have all come to the same conclusion. 
 While we welcome the power to establish the registration schemes, we do not believe that the proposals are sufficient to provide the protection that is needed for some of the most vulnerable children in the country. As we know, the key dilemmas for policy makers and practitioners are the extent to which it is realistic to impose controls on private arrangements made by parents for the care of their children and the extent to which all the different arrangements that fall into the category of private fostering can be subject to the same treatment. Opponents to the registration scheme often argue that the Government should not intervene in private life and that many families would find that unacceptable. The amendment would simply require keeping a register to be the duty of every children's services authority. 
 There are a lot of objections, and I am sure that the Minister will mention some. However, by passing this simple amendment and with the aid of regulations, which I know that she is keen on using, we could put constraints on the system that would overcome some of the fears. For example, we would need in particular to focus on private foster carers who propose to foster children not previously known to them. When the children are known to them, the new system could be seen as a cumbersome arrangement, but it would exist to assist parents, which is an important point. Parents who need to place their child with a private foster carer want to know that the carer is subject to some form of accountability. 
 Regulations could work with the amendment to ensure that inappropriate burdens are not imposed on carers. Individuals often care temporarily for a child whom they already know in their capacity as a friend, godparent or a member of the extended family, perhaps when there is illness in the family. There are many different circumstances in which the Government would not want to be too heavy-handed.

Hilton Dawson: In many of the circumstances that the hon. Lady has mentioned—when there is illness or bereavement in the family, for example—people need to look to friends, neighbours or members of the extended family to take over the care of a child for a short time. Private fostering comes into the equation only when the child has been in such care for 28 days, which is a long time.

Annette Brooke: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. I am on the defensive at the moment, trying to pre-empt some of the arguments that might be made against the registration scheme, and it is helpful that the figure is 28 days.
 There is a further concern in my area because there are many language schools. They are concerned because they rely on host families to have young people with them for more than 28 days. I understand their concern, because the checks must be onerous from a business point of view, but in principle the families should be checked. Discussing this issue makes us think more and more about how we did not 
 think about those considerations when we let our children go off on foreign exchanges in the past. Now we are more aware of the dangers, we have to reach a balanced point of view. 
 I am aware that there are arguments against the scheme, particularly for the language schools in my area, but I would hope that we could develop a private fostering register. We would have to ensure that it did not catch up people with straightforward arrangements, although that would only be over 28 days. We would also need consultation to see how such an arrangement would affect people brought into the system for the first time, such as businesses, in the way that I have explained. 
 I have tabled a series of amendments that work together, but the fundamental principle remains that, with regulations, it would be possible to develop a private fostering registration scheme that addressed some of people's great fears. We often refer to Victoria Climbie and point out that private fostering was not involved in that case, but a private fostering arrangement was a part of another tragic case—that of Toni-Ann Byfield. We know that there are pitfalls, but I ask the Minister to consider the amendments.

Hilton Dawson: I would be much less defensive than the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole because I cannot honestly believe that the Government are proposing such an inadequate scheme as that expressed in clause 37 and introducing the possibility of a registration scheme only in a sunset clause. No one in this country has the first clue how many privately fostered children there are. In 2001, the Department of Health estimated that there were 10,000 privately fostered children in the country and that 50 per cent. of them had not been notified to the local authorities. Goodness knows where it got that statistic from, because there is no basis on which they could estimate the number not known to the local authorities.
 Victoria Climbie was privately fostered with a great aunt—that would go beyond the definition of a close relative. The Children Act 1989 states that a child is privately fostered if they stay for more than 28 days with someone who does not have parental responsibility or is not a relative. That is a very long time indeed. 
 The Government are aware of the experience of introducing regulations on child minding. People who cared for children in their own homes for more than two hours a day had to stop doing that in an unofficial capacity and become registered, a condition that has swiftly achieved the broadest acceptance in our society. Now, if parents need a child minder, a list is readily available of people who are police checked, approved and inspected and who can provide a decent service for their children. 
 Worryingly, private fostering is a cultural phenomenon. It is part of the culture in west African countries, especially Nigeria. Many people from west Africa come to this country to work or study, and they seek a private fostering arrangement for their children. Many of the people with whom they wish to leave their 
 children will not be known to them, or they may be aware of them through the extended family or through a network back home. 
 Surely, Victoria Climbie's extremely responsible and sensitive parents should have been able, if they had needed their child to be looked after, to check whether the local authority had a list of people prepared to take on private fostering arrangements. If they decided that they wanted to place their child with a particular person, they should have been able to ensure that that person had been thoroughly checked out by the local authority. 
 I do not know why the Government are so resistant to taking the sensible action urged on them by a previous chief inspector of social services, Sir William Utting. One wishes he had urged them to take that action while he was still in post. He suggested that legislation be introduced to require local authorities to maintain a register of private foster carers in their area who are approved as suitable; that it should be an offence to foster a child privately if the carer is unregistered or to place a child with an unregistered carer; and that standards should be published with the criteria against which private foster carers should be assessed for registration. The standards would be based on the current ones for child minders and would include elements of national standards for foster care. 
 I do not understand why the Government are not prepared to introduce such simple legislation now, rather than waiting for the future or perhaps, God help us, for another tragedy to occur in the meantime. We have debated this issue before in considering Bills; we tried to amend the Care Standards Bill in 2000. However, the Government are reluctant to take the issue on, which is extremely puzzling. 
 What I am urging is sensible, straightforward and profoundly in the interests of children and parents. It would ensure child safety. Thousands of children, including, perhaps, some of those from whom we never hear again after they pass through the hands of the immigration authorities at our ports, would become known to us. The measure would support Government policies aimed at defeating the sexual exploitation of children trafficked into this country and the exploitation of children coming into the country for domestic servitude. I suspect that that is a much greater problem than we fully understand. We would see progress on all those matters. 
 A short while ago, there was a meeting of Africans Unite Against Child Abuse. That excellent organisation is rooted in the African community in this country. As part of a week of events that AFRUCA was undertaking, I went to a discussion about child care in the back room of an African restaurant in Dalston. One lady stood up and exhorted everyone present to acknowledge that many people from the community living in London seek, after they have come to this country, worked and acquired some money and standing, to bring a child into the country on a private fostering basis, even though the child will not be looked after properly as a member of the 
 household. The child is used as a domestic servant to support the work of the household and to look after the children. The people of AFRUCA are extremely brave in raising such issues at national level. The Government should forget all about amendments to this useless notification scheme, which puts children at risk, and install a proper registration scheme now.

Tim Loughton: I have a good deal of sympathy with the amendments and the comments about the problems attached to the lack of a private fostering scheme. There is a sense of deja vu, as the hon. Gentleman said. We argued long and hard about this issue when we considered the Adoption and Children Bill. I certainly supported measures then to start a private fostering registration scheme. Last year, I promoted a private Member's Bill designed to do the same thing, which was supported by various members of the Committee that considered the Adoption and Children Bill, but still we are in this position. We seem to have made a little progress in getting the issue mentioned in the Bill at all. However, I cannot understand why, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) said, the Government are so resistant to the measures that they freely took on child minders.
 As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, we cannot quantify the problem. I fear that the figure of 10,000, which was plucked out of the air and which we used for discussions on the Adoption and Children Bill, is the tip of the iceberg. We have tended to concentrate on the west African angle, and I have given examples of girls coming from Nigeria and Sierra Leone into Sussex, but I am sure that it is a problem in many other places. 
 The ''power to establish'' a registration scheme is in the Bill, but there is no guarantee that it will actually happen. It is a sop to mention the issue without any real inclination to do something about it. All it does is place an additional duty on local authorities to try to seek out private fostering arrangements, but the people who most need to be sought out are those most determined to remain hidden. They are the least likely to volunteer their identity for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman mentioned: they are not looking after the children well, or they are making money and not declaring it—we cannot ignore the revenue angle, let alone the problems of the child's rights.

Margaret Hodge: We all understand the issue that we are trying to address. As the hon. Gentleman previously promoted a private Member's Bill on this issue, could he tell me how he thinks a registration scheme would be better at pulling out those people who privately foster children and do not comply with their notification obligations in law?

Tim Loughton: I think that it should be an offence. If someone does not declare that they are engaging in a private registration scheme, they should be subject to prosecution.

Margaret Hodge: My problem with that is that it is currently an offence for someone to fail to notify a local authority of their intent privately to foster a
 child. That is prosecutable, and they would be subject to a fine of £5,000 or £10,000—I cannot remember exactly how much. I am not trying to catch the hon. Gentleman out, but I sincerely want to know how he thinks a registration scheme could provide the additional strength to uncover unseen private fostering, which concerns us all, and thereby better safeguard children.

Tim Loughton: How many people have been prosecuted for a failure to notify?

Margaret Hodge: In my speech, I will deal with how to improve the notification scheme.

Tim Loughton: How many people have been prosecuted?

Margaret Hodge: It is not very many, and I will deal later with why I think that the notification scheme is not working well. I wanted the hon. Gentleman to tell me why a registration scheme has any hope of working better. What does he believe is in a registration scheme that we cannot put into a notification scheme, in which there is already an array of powers and duties on local authorities and families, that would make it more likely to uncover privately fostered children, for whom we both have a concern?

Tim Loughton: The nub of the problem is that the law is not working. The penalties are not seen to work, or even to exist, so the situation is not being addressed. A registration scheme must be enshrined in law, and we must publicise it as widely as possible rather than relying on the stretched resources of local authorities to seek these people out. We must clamp down those who flout every opportunity to register with such a scheme. I said at the outset that these people will not volunteer their identity unless we begin not only to make it clear that failure to do so is unacceptable, but to back that up with prosecutions with serious penalties attached.
 The Minister said that she thinks that few people have been prosecuted. I think that she is right, which means that the system is not working. We need to devise a system based on compulsory registration, tougher penalties and making people well aware of what will hit them if they do not comply. We might then start to get better compliance and clamp down on some of the graver abuses of the system. 
 I freely admit that the register is not easy, but I cannot understand why the Minister is happy for the situation to remain as it is. The Bill does not take us forward; it is a sop to an enormous lobby of people from across the political divide and from all the family and children-oriented bodies. The scheme is past its due date, but the Government still seem not to want to move on it, despite all the reports. Lord Utting knew what he was talking about, and other reports, commissioned by the Government, came to the same conclusion. 
 Aside from the penalty issue, there are attractions for parents in having a register to which they can refer. Hon. Members have touched on some of them. 
 Currently, parents may mistakenly think that a private foster carer who has not been prohibited from fostering has been positively approved. Parents who need to place their child with a private foster carer would be aided in their search for a suitable family by a register showing that the people on it have met basic standards. 
 We may be talking about people in distressed circumstances; for example, people who have suffered a bereavement. If, all of a sudden, the person who was caring for a child is not there, and no extended family members can fill their place, the family will need to look for someone whom they do not know. At the moment, there is no quality mark that can be relied on. There is enormous confusion and ignorance about the calibre of the private fostering arrangements available.

Hilton Dawson: The hon. Gentleman has moved on slightly, but he has put his finger on the distinction between a notification scheme and a registration scheme. The first considers the well-being of a particular child in a placement, while the second looks at the standards of the people offering the private fostering service. Those are two different things.

Tim Loughton: What is being suggested is constructive, not just additional regulation. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole would leave it up to local authorities to devise their registration schemes, so we are not trying to impose a central model on them.
 There also needs to be a method of linking local authorities. Just as we have highly mobile vulnerable children, we may have highly mobile duff foster carers. At the moment, many people are falling through the gap. Let us take the example of a foster carer who goes through the checks and is engaged by an authority in, for want of a better example, Stoke-on-Trent. If the carer then falls short of the standards expected and the authority decides no longer to use them, but their offence is not prosecutable or sufficient to put them on the Department for Education and Skills black list—list 99, I think—the authority needs a method of communicating that to other authorities, to prevent the carer touting for business in, for example, Brighton and Hove, and starting with a clean sheet. 
 I know that the mechanisms are supposed to be in place, but in many instances they are not working. Given that we have an acute shortage of foster carers—estimated to be at least 10,000—if a new foster carer turned up and contacted a local authority, it would in many cases be keen to take them. Perhaps the checks would not be carried out to the rigorous standard required because the authority was desperate to get another foster carer on the books. That is the current state of play in the foster care market. 
 I am the last one to want to be unduly intrusive into individual families or to impose yet more regulations on local authorities and professionals. However, our proposal would have advantages for them as well as placing burdens on them. I cannot see why the Government still resist this idea when all the professional advice is not only that it is right but that it should have happened some time ago. I have a deal 
 of sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Lady and the points made by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

Margaret Hodge: This is a difficult issue. I will take hon. Members through the arguments. I do not want anyone to think that we are not concerned about finding appropriate mechanisms to ensure that children at risk because they have been placed in an unsuitable private fostering environment, are identified and supported and, if necessary, removed from that environment.
 Let me start with the support that the professional bodies give to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). That professional support is not total. One reason is that people are not clear how best to tackle what is a very difficult problem. Let me give two examples. 
 Hon. Members have not referred to a joint statement by the two most important professional bodies: the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services. They state: 
 ''We do not support the argument that local authorities are unable, within present legislation, to prevent those private fostering arrangements which they feel are unsuitable, from happening. It is true that only rarely are proceedings initiated to prohibit such arrangements but the current legislation does make it possible for the local authority to intervene and there are significant sanctions which can be applied if a private foster carer ignores the prohibition order, including the potential for imprisonment. 
 So it can be argued that existing safeguarding arrangements have the potential, if applied, to be sufficiently robust. The problem is in their application (or lack of it) which in turn is a product of the failure of private foster carers or birth parents to notify local authorities of such arrangements. It is hard to see how a requirement to register will make people behave differently. Indeed it could equally be argued that a requirement to register might be a further deterrent.''

Tim Loughton: Does the Minister think that people's behaviour may change if we see some high-profile prosecutions of people who have not complied with the law?

Margaret Hodge: It may indeed. I want to come on to how we can better use the existing legislative framework without moving immediately into a new framework. Would legislation to establish a register be more effective than current arrangements, or would it provide an additional deterrent, as both the ADSS and the LGA—organisations that are not off the wall and which represent the professional cohort—believe? I am sure that their statement was sent to the hon. Gentleman, but I would be happy to share it with him.
 The Social Care Institute for Excellence was established specifically to discover and spread best practice. In December 2002, it published a position paper on the effectiveness of child-minding registration and its implications for private fostering. It found that for some types of private fostering arrangements, registration might not be the most 
 appropriate or effective safeguard. I am merely drawing to hon. Members' attention the fact that although they passionately believe that the proposal is the best way of dealing with an intractable problem, we are receiving equally passionate and clear advice that some of the key professionals do not believe that it is the best way forward. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre claims that a registration scheme would ensure child safety. He said that it would ensure that Government policies could defeat the sexual and domestic exploitation. It might, but I am not sure that it would. My hon. Friend must accept that it could equally drive it underground. If we make better use of our existing legislative framework, which has not been properly used, we may not need a registration scheme. That is why the powers in the clause strengthen the legislative framework in which local authorities operate, giving us what is known as a sunset clause, so that if these final efforts to identify and protect privately fostered children do not work, we can attempt to introduce a registration scheme without having to return to Parliament with primary legislation. I am worried about introducing a registration scheme, but I accept that if we cannot make the other scheme work, we will have to do so.

Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, but the argument that registering something and trying to raise standards will drive the problem underground was used against the registration of child minders. We use the criminal law to deal with people who evade their responsibilities. I have great respect for the Association of Directors of Social Services, but I am not inclined to take lessons from it because it is part of the body that has failed on this matter. It is astounding that its officials say that the legislation enables them to run a scheme, when they have palpably not done so since the Children Act was introduced in 1989. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend told me what she considers so wrong with a registration scheme that would address itself to the aptitudes, abilities and safety of people doing private fostering.

Margaret Hodge: First, on the analogy with child minders, there is a difference, partly because private fostering is a complex world, as we know. It involves not just the group about whom we are most concerned—the children of African families who come here—but many others. People usually become child minders to earn money, so they have an incentive to register. However, many private fostering arrangements are made without the exchange of money, so the incentive to register does not exist.
 I shall now say something about the notification scheme and what we want it to do. The clause is in the Bill because we want to strengthen the scheme and give it one last chance to work. It is not wrong in theory, but it needs strength and power to ensure that it is implemented. First, we want to promote awareness by publicising it, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested. I agree with him that we should publicise both the existing notification scheme 
 and some high-profile cases; that may bring about a culture of compliance, which is what we want. However, we do not need to change the law and create a registration scheme to do that—we will require local authorities to promote awareness of the scheme. 
 Secondly, we will require local authorities to monitor the operation of the scheme far more closely, and to provide information for us on how many registrations they achieve each year. They will monitor registration, and we will monitor their effectiveness. That will give us a tool to determine, over time, whether the notification scheme is working. We will then require the inspectorates, in the framework of inspection that we are developing for all children's services, to do their work, and we will require the local safeguarding boards to have regard to how well or otherwise private fostering arrangements are being implemented. We are putting in place several mechanisms that will support the scheme. 
 The hon. Gentleman gave the example of a suddenly bereaved family who might want to use a register. That is a dangerous route, and I ask him to think that matter through. Using the analogy of the world of child care in the home, the fostering system is similar to the light-touch registration scheme that we propose to implement in the new year for nannies and childminders. 
 In the system for notification, a simple, basic check is undertaken using the Criminal Records Bureau and the household itself. We try to ensure that there is safety for the child. We do not do the very thorough checks that are carried out for those who become foster carers of looked-after children. It would be an error to assume, from the basic checks that we undertake, that we can provide the same sort of comfort to parents who choose to use a particular private foster carer that we need when we are placing children who are looked-after. 
 There is a great danger in using the register to say, ''This person has been authorised; this person will be appropriate for dealing with your child.'' Through checking, all we will have done is to ensure that there is nothing—nothing in the ether—that makes a particular private foster carer unsuitable for working with children. One must always be careful with such regulatory frameworks, particularly those relating to the care of children, that one is not giving parents greater security and certainty than can actually be provided.

Tim Loughton: The problem at present is that if someone has not been banned from being a private foster carer, the assumption is that they are okay, without there having been any checks at all. The key thing is to ensure that there are appropriate, balanced checks, which are not enormously burdensome in their rigour. Those checks would give a degree of comfort to someone that the person that they are selecting for a private fostering arrangement is at least secure and knows what they are doing for that particular job, just as local authorities must assess the private foster carers that they use for their looked-after children.

Margaret Hodge: Those basic checks that give some comfort exist in the notification scheme. I agree with all hon. Members that the notification scheme has not worked—there has not been compliance with the regulatory framework. Through the Bill, we are attempting to toughen up the regulatory framework so that local authorities take the task seriously, and will publicise, monitor and deliver in relation to the notification. Moreover, for the first time, we are adding a requirement that local authorities should be informed about a placement before it occurs. They will then have a duty to check out the place and the person before the child arrives. That is a new provision in the notification scheme, which we think will strengthen it.
 Having said all that, we have concerns with a registration scheme and the reason why we have included a sunset clause is because I recognise that if those additional duties that we are giving to local authorities in our clause do not work—

Marion Roe: Order. I ask the Minister if she could kindly address the Chair, because Hansard is having difficulty in picking up her words.

Margaret Hodge: My apologies, Dame Marion. The reason why we have placed a sunset clause in the Bill is because I accept what hon. Members say and, if this final attempt to get the notification scheme to work is not successful, we would have to examine an alternative, despite the many concerns that we have about the alternatives.
 Private fostering is a complex area that covers many people. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that through regulations we could limit the measure to that group of children about whom we are all most concerned, but the way in which she has framed her amendments would not enable us to do that. We would have to have a registration scheme that registered all those young people who went to language schools, who fell out with their families and spent some time on a friend's sofa, and who were placed with another relative because their mother went into hospital or was ill. A mental health illness would be a classic example.

Hilton Dawson: We would have to register young people only if they stayed away for more than 28 days. I have made the point previously. Of course young people clear off and sleep on friends' sofas, but 28 days is a long time. If we do not have a proper registration scheme, we are leaving a huge gap whereby children could be abused. I believe that language schools should be registered. Allowing young people to come to a foreign country without these schools being registered is incredible.

Margaret Hodge: We are not leaving a huge gap: we have the notification scheme. It has not been properly brought into effect, but we hope that it will prove more effective with the amendments that we are making to it. Our fear remains that, under a formal registration scheme, there is no incentive in the circumstances about which we have most concerns—a young child being privately fostered—for anyone to come forward and be properly registered. In fact, there might well be
 a disincentive, because there would be the issue of costs, who pays and so on. When I was a child and my mother was very ill, I was placed with distant relatives for about three months. The idea that they would have had to register to help my mother out would have been completely potty.

Tim Loughton: And look what happened.

Margaret Hodge: I know—it damaged me for life.

Tim Loughton: She used to be a conservative.

Margaret Hodge: It brought me to my senses then.
 I think that we have now been around the houses. The only other issue that I want to cover is the barring system, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred. He will appreciate that we are reflecting on Sir Michael Bichard's report on what went wrong at Soham. Clearly, arising out of that, we will have to see how we can develop a system whereby information on those who are unsuitable for work with children is taken over local authority boundaries. We take that issue seriously, but it is not totally pertinent to this set of amendments. 
 I have sympathy with the spirit of the amendments, but I am extremely sceptical about the confidence with which hon. Members claim that a registration scheme would change the world in the direction in which they and I wish to travel. I hope that they will support what we have proposed, which is to strengthen the current notification scheme. However, in understanding exactly where all hon. Members are coming from on this issue, we are taking the powers in the sunset clause, so that if we fail in our endeavours to make the notification scheme work, we will not need to return to the House with primary legislation and we will implement the registration scheme, despite our concerns about whether it will work as well as everyone would like it to.

Annette Brooke: I thank all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It has been useful, but to my mind the Minister's arguments have not won the day over the other points that have been made. She mentioned the Social Care Institute for Excellence. I understand that the executive summary of the report to which she referred makes an argument for the registration of some private fostering arrangements based on balance and proportionality. It certainly does not dismiss them out of hand.

Tim Loughton: I have that executive summary in my hands. I was surprised to hear the Minister pray in aid a report that supported the principle of a private registration scheme and said how successful the child minding registration scheme had been. To quote one line:
 ''Registration of childminders has proved a prerequisite for professionalisation, leading to self-regulation in terms of both standards of care and notification of unregistered childminders.'' 
The same applies to fostering.

Margaret Hodge: Read on.

Tim Loughton: I do not think I have time in this intervention to read on. I would be happy to read out the entire report if the Committee would tolerate it, but I think it probably would not.

Annette Brooke: There is clearly a debate to be had on that subject, but I did not want to let that point pass. There are various questions to be asked. As well as the subject of stricter requirement for notification there is the issue of potential enforcement and I would like to raise the question of fines being increased.
 The Minister suggested that the current drafting of the amendment would not stand up to the regulations that I envisaged to make the system workable in consultation with all parties. I am sure that if we display the strength of feeling for the amendment now, there is ample time for the Minister to come up with a suitable amendment on Report. There have been many Government amendments during this Committee, and although I thought that they would be exhausted by Report, this is a situation in which one would be acceptable. 
 The serious point is that nobody feels that now is the time to delay working on a registration scheme. It would not be possible to implement it overnight and time is passing. We live in a slightly different world now and the number of unaccompanied children coming into the country is more of an issue—as we have said, we are not even able to quantify it. The scheme would apply to residents of this country as well as children coming into the country, but the latter is a new development since the Minister was in that situation. 
 I wish to press the amendment to a vote because it is important for us to convey the strength of feeling on the issue. Having listened to the overwhelming arguments and given that the Minister is prepared to introduce the system in a few years' time, the question is why not introduce it now. We have not had an answer. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 152, in
clause 38, page 29, line 26, leave out 'six months' and insert
'51 weeks (or, in the case of an offence committed before the commencement of section 281(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44), not exceeding six months)'.
 I intend to deal with the amendment quickly, to give time for debate on other amendments. The amendment brings the length of the prison sentence in line with the Criminal Justice Act 2003. If hon. Members wish to debate the amendment, I shall give greater detail. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Clause 38, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 39 to 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 - Child minding and day care

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in
schedule 4, page 44, line 7, at end insert—
 'Hotels etc
 In Schedule 9A, after paragraph 2 insert—
 ''2A (1) Part XA does not apply to provision of day care in a hotel, guest house or other similar establishment for children staying in that establishment where—
(a) the provision takes place only between 6 pm and 2 am; and
(b) the person providing the care is doing so for no more than two different clients at the same time.
(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1)(b), a ''client'' is a person at whose request (or persons at whose joint request) day care is provided for a child.''.'.
 Again, this is a small amendment to deal with an anomaly that we have uncovered. If babysitting is provided in a hotel, it needs to be registered. We are making the necessary changes so that if children are looked after or babysat in a hotel, Ofsted registration is not required. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 - Intervention

Amendments made: No. 153, in 
clause 42, page 30, line 28, after '9', insert 
 'and (children and young people's plans: England)' 
No. 154, in 
clause 42, page 30, line 30, after '21', insert 
 ', (children and young people's plans: Wales)' 
 .—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Inspection of local education authorities

Margaret Hodge: I beg to move amendment No. 155, in
clause 43, page 31, leave out lines 7 to 13 and insert—
 ' ''(2) An inspection of a local education authority in England under this section shall consist of a review of the way in which the authority are performing any function conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority, other than a function falling within the remit of the Adult Learning Inspectorate under section 53 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21).
 (2A) An inspection of a local education authority in Wales under this section shall consist of a review of the way in which the authority are performing—
(a) any function conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority; and
(b) the functions conferred on them under sections 21 and (children and young people's plans: Wales) so far as relating to education, training or youth support services (within the meaning of section 123 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21)).'''

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 156 and clause stand part.

Margaret Hodge: The amendment will ensure that the new duties in the Bill can be inspected in Wales. Also, because of what we hope to achieve in that respect, we have to modify the provisions for England.
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendment made: No. 156, in 
clause 43, page 31, line 14, leave out subsection (2).—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44 - Duty of local authorities to promote educational achievement

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in
clause 44, page 31, line 21, at end add—
 '( ) The duty requires local authorities to request schools to set out their admission policies with particular regard to looked after children and for schools to notify their arrangements for addressing the particular needs of looked-after children.'

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 230, in
clause 44, page 31, line 21, at end add— 
 '( ) For the purpose of satisfying the duty imposed upon it by this section a local authority shall have the power to secure from the governing body or other appropriate authority of any school within its area information about the admission policies applicable in that school with particular regard to looked after children and about arrangements applicable in that school for addressing the needs of looked after children.'.

Tim Loughton: We have just made a lot of progress.
 I hope that we all agree on the need to improve the educational achievement of looked-after children. That is not at issue, but what is at issue is the way that is currently achieved—or not—and how the wording of the clause will affect that. I raised some of my worries on Second Reading, which led to the tabling of two Opposition amendments. We are offering multiple choice; the amendments would achieve the same result, but one is based on a more expert legalese than the other. 
 I expect that everyone will agree that the educational achievement of looked-after children is a national disgrace. The figures make depressing reading; they are shameful. A report compiled by the Local Government Association states that 27 per cent. of looked-after children had statements of special educational needs, compared with only 3 per cent. of all school children in England. At key stage 1, as many as 53 per cent. of looked-after children achieved level 2, compared with 85 per cent. of all children. At key stage 2, 42 per cent. of looked-after children achieved level 4, compared with 78 per cent. of all children. 
 At key stage 3, the gap is even bigger: 23 per cent. of looked-after children achieved level 5, compared with 69 per cent. of all children. Fifty-three per cent. of looked-after children obtained at least one GCSE or GNVQ, compared with 95 per cent. of all children—almost double the number—and 9 per cent. of looked-after children obtained at least 5 GCSEs or equivalent at grades A* to C, compared with 53 of all children. 
 Those figures are pretty stark. The number of looked-after children going on to university is barely 1 per cent., compared with about 6 per cent. of all children. We desperately need to do something about that. 
 We must also consider the question of staying in full-time education post-16. Only 57 of looked-after children remained in full-time education post-16, compared with 72 per cent. of all children; and 22 per cent. of looked-after children were unemployed in the September after leaving school, compared with only 7 per cent. of all children. At virtually every stage, through secondary education, to higher education and on to employment, looked-after children are being seriously let down by the state; they are seriously disadvantaged. 
 Those figures reinforce what I and other hon. Members have said from the start. The state does not make a good parent. It fails looked-after children, particularly in the realm of education. We all agree that we need to do something about it. The problem is knowing what we should do. At the moment, schools are required to nominate teachers who can specialise in the needs of looked-after children. There are moves to apply that provision to governors; it certainly needs to happen, such is the scale of the problem. 
 In my experience as a school governor of schools that include looked-after children among their pupils, such children are not treated as a priority. They clearly need to be given greater priority. However, treating them as a priority on admission is fraught with problems. I said on Second Reading that if we read the clause as giving priority of admission at oversubscribed schools to looked-after children over those children that live with their birth parents, it will cause problems. Indeed, we debated that subject over the Dispatch Box with the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw). 
 We clearly want looked-after children to go to the most appropriate school. I have had a lot of dealings with local schools that are oversubscribed—as 
 constituency MPs, we see it all the time. We know that many constituents are unable to get their children into those schools because of oversubscription, even though the siblings are already at that school and even though they live in the catchment area. For the better schools, we are talking about large-scale oversubscription. 
 The implications of the clause may be that if a school is oversubscribed by 20 children, 10 of whom are looked after and 10 of whom are living with their birth parents, there will be automatic priority for the 10 looked-after children. That may be the best course of action for the 10 looked-after children—I do not deny that—but is it fair on the 10 children living with their birth parents, who may have a greater claim to go to the school because of the catchment area or siblings already going there? 
 My big fear is that if that process is encouraged by the clause—that may not be its intention, but it could be a by-product—there could be a backlash against those looked-after children, which is the last thing that we want. The prejudice against them may already be substantial, and we need to do everything that we can to ensure that they are integrated as fully as possible into mainstream schools and no stigma is attached to them. That is why we have tabled the amendments. 
 I suspect that certain schools are currently operating in a discriminatory manner against looked-after children. I can understand why they may want to do that. Looked-after children's educational achievement is less impressive on average, and they may bring down the achievement standards of the schools. As schools have been so intimidated by the Secretary of State and this Government—[Interruption.] The Minister missed that one. As they have been so intimidated into achievement, keeping to targets and featuring well in performance tables, the last thing that they want is to take on raw material, for want of a better word, in children who may bring the standards down. That is not acceptable. 
 Someone has written to me to say that, in a certain country, 
''there are comprehensive schools who use cohort selection in order to admit high achieving pupils, and hence often discriminate against disadvantaged children. It can often be difficult to prove that cohort selection is going on, since headteachers are able to justify their pupil statistics as being the result of 'parental choice'.'' 
That is a problem, and the impact that being left out of those schools can have on looked-after children is considerable. Another letter said: 
''a young person being told that a school 'doesn't want them' is extremely damaging to their self-esteem and morale'', 
and that is to someone whose self-esteem and morale is likely already to have taken a big dent by being a looked-after child in care. 
 The problem is not easy to solve but, it needs to be addressed. We need to achieve a proper balance between ensuring that such children get into the most appropriate schools that give them the best opportunities and not causing detriment to other children, which could lead to a backlash against the looked-after children. The amendments would place a 
 greater clarity and transparency on individual schools' admissions policies with regard to looked-after children and ensure that they make much clearer their arrangements for looking after those children once they are in school. For example, are they serious about having a nominated teacher who can help execute the care plans within the school environment? Will they have a nominated governor who is not doing the job on Buggins's turn but is proactive in ensuring that the interests of looked-after children are stood up for? 
 The role of local authority is crucial in many respects. There is no excuse for the social worker or nominated person in the local authority not to turn up at a parents evening, just as any of us would expect our parents to turn up shamefully, ready to be told the bad news about our progress. We know about the great rapport between the Minister and you, Dame Marion, in your schooldays. I am sure that your parents and the Minister's parents showed up and that at least one set came away glowing with the reports that they received. 
 There is another important aspect. Considering the duty placed on the director of children's services, social services departments will have a greater responsibility 
 in moving children around the system. One of the greatest boosts to a child's educational achievement must surely be the stability of placement at a school, preferably the right school in the first place. However, time and again children in their teens, who are at a difficult, impressionable age, but a key age in terms of their character formation and their educational career, move from one foster family to another or to a children's home, where the last consideration is proximity to the school that the child attends. What is considered is what foster family is available that the local authority can afford, even if that placement is at the other end of the county, which in my constituency means 40 or 50 miles away. In such circumstances, the child clearly cannot keep his place at the school where he may just be finding his feet and making a go of things. We should give far greater responsibility to social services departments to consider the continuity of a child's education. 
 Amendments No. 47 and, the alternative, amendment No. 230 would provide greater transparency in admissions to schools, even if there cannot be an entirely level playing field in that respect. We need to do something about the matter, but it is fraught with problems. The National Union of Teachers, who warmed to amendment No. 230, assures me that it is written in a suitably watertight form, which may appeal to the parliamentary draftsmen who are so controlling in deciding whether Ministers are amenable to our proposals. 
 The amendments make a serious point: there is a deficiency in the present system. The Bill provides an opportunity to tackle it, and I hope that the Minister will support one of the amendments.

Margaret Hodge: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. The way in which we corporately care for the most vulnerable children in the community—those who are looked after by the state—is a national disgrace. It would not be good enough for us, as parents.

James Clappison: The Minister is very generous. It should be made clear that it is not a recent disgrace; it has been going on for a long time, under Governments of all descriptions.

Margaret Hodge: Yes, I agree. People often ask me about my new position in Government, my array of responsibilities and how I would want to be measured in terms of the success or otherwise of the endeavour of getting a step change in outcomes for children. We all have to prioritise our work, but for me, achieving better outcomes for looked-after children is the key priority on which, if I am given enough time in the job, I sincerely want to be judged. It is a do-able task; we are not talking about a huge cohort of children, but about 60,000 at any one time. The figure is rising—it goes up by about 1 to 2 per cent. per annum—not because more children are coming into the care system but because children have more complex needs and stay in the system for longer.
 If every child is genuinely to matter in our society, our ability to ensure that they have the opportunity to achieve good results, not only in education but right through their life, must be central to the whole endeavour of a children's directorate within the Department for Education and Skills. 
 It might be worth reflecting a little on who these children are. They go into care for many reasons. Nearly half of them have been abused or neglected, 12 per cent. come from dysfunctional families, 10 per cent. have families who are suffering acute stress, and 6 per cent. have an absent parent. Only 7 per cent. go into care because of their own behaviour, and even then there may be underlying causes. These children, who have suffered or been let down by their family circumstances, go into care through no fault of their own, yet we, as corporate parents, fail them time and time again. We must do better. 
 I shall pick up on one point that we are considering very carefully as I think about how we can improve the outcomes for looked-after children. The key to ensuring better outcomes for them is stability, to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred. All too often, local authorities are outrageously poor at planning and commissioning places for looked-after children. Someone comes into the local authority office on a Friday afternoon, there is no proper plan for the number of places needed, officials ring around in desperation and simply put the child wherever they can, probably in a terribly eccentric place right outside the borough and borough authority in which the child is located, thus tearing the child away from their family, their school, their friends and their entire network of support. That is why local authorities need to have the prime duty of care for the outcomes for looked-after children. 
 We believe that if we can improve stability, we can ensure that children who are brought into the care system are placed more quickly in a stable and loving environment. That will be the key to unlocking better educational attainment and higher educational achievement. 
 The statistics are terribly worrying. Some 16 per cent. of looked-after children move home at least three times a year. If those children then change school, how on earth can we begin to expect them to achieve high standards at school? We cannot. We have tabled amendments and new clauses on foster care, which we will discuss later in our consideration of the Bill. We are trying very hard to see how we can grow the foster care cohort, because that is another really important way of giving a good, appropriate, alternative, loving home environment in which a child can be supported. There are huge problems, some of which we will talk about later. 
 It is a question not only of increasing the number of foster carers, important though that is, but of ensuring that those carers are properly supported. They should receive training, support when they have to deal with a crisis, a little respite, and a telephone line that they can call. It is that panoply of support that makes a better foster carer. 
 One of the things that worries me when considering the cohort of children who are placed with foster carers is that 40 per cent. of foster carers have no qualifications. We know that there is a correlation between the qualifications of parents—and the supportive environment of the home—and the achievements of the child at school. I am not saying that foster carers are not wonderful, loving people, but there is something that we need to unlock between that worrying statistic and the educational achievement of young children.

Chris Mole: Would the Minister applaud those local authorities that have begun to develop the concept of super foster carers? She spoke of the increasingly complex needs of many of the young people coming into the looked-after system. Not every foster parent is equipped to cope with all of those needs. It is appropriate to identify the foster parents who have had particular experience or developed more skills. In some circumstances, the local authorities are considering providing higher rewards for those taking on more difficult children.

Margaret Hodge: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree with him. One of the things that we are trying to do is to create what amounts to a career structure for foster carers, placing greater value on the foster care work force. Some local authorities are developing very innovative practices both for training to support children with exceedingly complex needs and for rewarding people. One of the initiatives that I have taken since I have had this job has been to instigate a national awards scheme. I hope that it will be in operation by next year so that we can give national recognition to foster carers for their extremely important contribution to the lives of the children in their care.
 I have seen some very good projects as I have gone round the country and spoken to people who are looking for carers. There is one in Wandsworth, a Conservative authority, run by the Shaftesbury 
 Society. It is not a foster home but a children's home, and the scheme is not rocket science but common sense. It has a simple system: it employs a number of women who work part time. Many of them are graduates, many qualified teachers. Each adult works with about five children and makes sure that the children get up in the morning and go to school, use personal computers to access the necessary information to complete their assignments, and get their work in on time. They go and talk to the teachers at parents' evenings, as many of us have done for our own children. Miracle of miracles, if we look at the GCSE results in that environment with that additional support, the children are at national average—52 per cent. pass five GCSEs at grade A to C, rather than the horrifically poor figure to which my hon. Friend alluded. There are other issues—

Annette Brooke: I raised on Second Reading the fact that funding for computers for foster homes had been stopped. I have now received a written reply on the matter, and it is clear that that scheme has come to an end. As the Minister is rightly saying that we have to improve educational standards within foster carers' homes, can she look into that cut in budget? I shall be happy with a written answer. I apologise for that, but it fitted well in to the discussion.

Margaret Hodge: I shall certainly look into that—how could I resist the temptation?—and I shall write to the hon. Lady about what is happening with regard to computers for looked-after children in foster care homes, and what steps we can take to give support. This is a complicated issue. It is partly about the growth of foster care and partly about an issue that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised, which was that nearly a third of looked-after children are placed outside their authority. As he knows from experience, there may not be good communication between the two local authorities.

Tim Loughton: The Minister makes a good point. I was looking at the figures last night and was alarmed to see that the vast majority of London boroughs place the vast majority of looked-after children—either in foster care or private children's homes—outside their boroughs. In one case, 88 per cent. of a borough's children are placed outside the authority.

Margaret Hodge: That is alarming. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that we are working with a number of authorities that receive and export children, to examine commissioning arrangements, so that fewer children are placed outside the borough, and to establish better working protocols, if they are placed outside the borough, to ensure that children's interests are protected and promoted.
 I should put these discussions into context: a lot has improved. The number of adoptions has risen hugely since our enormous efforts and the review of the procedure. There has been a 30 per cent. increase in the number of children adopted from care over the past three years. That is important because if more children are adopted, they are provided with a stable 
 environment in a warm and loving home, which is the precondition of ensuring that they are able to do well at school. 
 The social exclusion unit report examined educational outcomes of looked-after children on behalf of the Government, and this clause emerged from that. It is worth reflecting on a number of its findings before we view a duty on schools as the solution to this complex problem. First, it found that young people in care spend too much time out of school—they either do not have a school place, are excluded or do not attend. I hope that many of our reforms, which will build professional services around the needs of the child with a lead professional, will support looked-after children better so that those factors do not emerge and lead to poor results. 
 I say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham that in my constituency almost all looked-after children attend the same school. That is not a good situation, which is why we have introduced our admissions code. It may interest the hon. Gentleman to know that that school, which has always had more places available than any other in the borough and therefore takes in not only looked-after children but asylum-seeking children, has miraculously had the highest increase in results of any secondary school in the borough. When trying to explain that, we obviously take it as read that there is a brilliant head and brilliant staff. However, another factor is that the asylum-seeking children are very motivated and high attaining, and once they master the language, they add huge value to the outcomes of the school. 
 The second reason that the social exclusion unit found for children not doing well was stability, which we have talked about. The third reason was that they do not get sufficient help with their education if they fall behind. In that context, we should consider the scheme that the Shaftesbury Society has implemented. It is expensive: there are 60,000 looked-after children so one adult working with five children would be a big investment. We will later consider foster care allowances, so we must think about our priorities on where our investment gets the most effective outcome for looked-after children.. 
 The SEU's fourth finding was that primary carers are not expected or equipped to provide sufficient support and encouragement. Again, I have dealt with that issue a little in talking about the qualification levels of foster carers and the failure of many social services departments to put sufficient energy behind the foster care work force, and to invest in and support it properly, particularly through the difficult times such as the teenage years. If one cannot keep people locked in the system in their teenage years, one is bound to fail. 
 The fifth reason given in the SEU report for the poor results was that children have unmet emotional, mental and physical health needs that have an impact on their education. Again, there are some shocking statistics. I was shocked when I first got this job to discover that one in 10 children between the ages of five and 15 has a mental health condition that requires some sort of professional intervention. Looked-after 
 children are five times more likely than any of their peer group to require some support because of mental illness. That is linked to our failure corporately to parent them in a loving way and to provide an environment in which they feel emotionally well and therefore emotionally equipped to support their education. 
 That is what the SEU found to be wrong. It then made a series of recommendations that it thought we should undertake. It talked about better management and leadership. It talked about a new proposed duty on local authorities to promote educational achievement. Taking on that recommendation led to the clause in the Bill to ensure that local authorities—the corporate parent, the new director of children's service and his cohort—take responsibility for that. Round the country one sees the best outcomes for looked-after children where they are owned at leadership level in local authorities. Ealing council came in to see me recently. The leader of Ealing council sits monthly at a committee overseeing the care of the council's looked-after children. That commitment and leadership at the top results in far better outcomes for those children than we have seen elsewhere. 
 The second recommendation was to support the front line more effectively by improving training on child development. Our entire change for children programme implies that we should focus much more on training those people who work with looked-after children, particularly on supporting foster carers. The third recommendation was to improve the understanding and attitude towards those in care by developing a communications strategy to promote understanding and positive images of care. 
 Here I have to say, and I think that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham would agree, that the work that the BBC did last year in that series of programmes was a powerful demonstration that tried to ensure that our values for children in care were challenged. The hon. Gentleman talked of the backlash that exists against looked-after children and I hear about how that is handled day in and day out when I talk to them of their experience at school. 
 The recommendations also concerned the number of school changes, reducing the out-of-authority placements, improving the regional commissioning of specialist services and ensuring that work force national standards take full account of the priority that the Government place on the education of children in care. We are doing that. Another recommendation concerned prioritising children in care in policy development. I have given assurances to the Committee that I intend to do that. Another was to make better use of information research and priorities in looked-after children inspection arrangements. We have taken on board all those recommendations from this thorough bit of work by the SEU. 
 We have come specifically to the issue of whether we should put a duty on schools. We think that that misses the point. It misses the point of stability. If we can get stability in children's lives, a lot of things will flow from it. The proposal passes the buck for 
 responsibility for the corporate parent away from the director of children's services and to the schools. That is unfair. We already overload schools. Schools have to be a partner and to co-operate, but they should not have prime responsibility. 
 The new school admissions code of practice, however, makes it clear that admission authorities should give top priority to looked-after children in their admission arrangements. All admission authorities, whether they are LEAs, foundation schools, voluntary aided schools or academies, are required to have regard to that advice. Admission arrangements are consulted on and published each year. The governing bodies of schools that are their own admission authority are required to provide LEAs with information about their admission arrangements, so that the LEA can publish them in its composite prospectus. If a school's admission arrangements do not give looked-after children top priority, the LEA or other schools can raise an objection with the adjudicator. Our experience, even in the short time that such arrangements have been in place, is that the adjudicators have consistently upheld such objections. 
 The new admissions forums also have an important role. They have been asked to agree protocols to ensure that looked-after children can access suitable schools outside the normal admission arrangements in an effective and timely fashion. 
 I accept that the school admission system has not worked in favour of looked-after children in the past, but I hope that the new arrangements that we are putting in place will ensure that it does so now. We need to see how the arrangements work in practice before we think about any further action. However, I am happy to assure the Committee that our forthcoming guidance for local authorities on their new duty under the clause will include the importance of securing an appropriate school place. 
 The amendments also seek to ensure that schools publicise their arrangements for addressing the needs of looked-after children more generally. We have already taken steps to ensure that schools play a key part in supporting the education of looked-after children. We published a guidance document, ''The Education of Children and Young People in Public Care'', in 2000, which recommended that schools should designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in care. That guidance says that LEAs and social service departments should co-ordinate suitable training for designated teachers and maintain an up-to-date list of designated teachers in schools in their area. 
 As for publicising a school's arrangements, we are actively considering how best to ensure that schools, through the proposed new school profile, should be encouraged to demonstrate to parents, carers and others how they serve the full range of their pupils, including looked-after children. I am not in favour of requiring schools, through legislation, to report on their provision for specific groups of vulnerable 
 children. That might lead to the problems to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. If we made such provision for one group, we would be asked to do so for others. 
 I am happy, however, to assure the Committee that we will think carefully about what our forthcoming guidance for local authorities on the new duty under clause 42 should say about the issue. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and accept that the framework that we are putting in place is the best way forward.

Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister for her lengthy response to the amendments and for taking them in the spirit in which they were meant. I concur with a number of her points. The BBC's ''Taking Care'' season was an excellent innovation and I was pleased to sponsor an early-day motion in support of it.
 I was slightly surprised by the Minister's figures on adoption, because, from memory—she recently replied to a parliamentary question of mine—I think that the number of adopted children stands at about 3,500. That is certainly an increase, but the Minister said that there had been an increase of about one third. When we considered the Adoption and Children Act 2002, I think that the figure was a little short of 3,000. There are signs that things are improving and one would hope that they are improving for the right reasons. Clearly, there are still problems for children in particularly complex cases who are not seeing that uplift, but I am not sure that the improvement is as good as the Minister made out. 
 It is interesting to hear the figures on out-of-area placements, which, as the Minister knows, is a bugbear of mine. In her area, Barking and Dagenham, 59 per cent. of foster placements are out of area, and 41 per cent. in area. In Camden, 78 per cent. of foster placements are made outside the local authority area, and in Brent 100 per cent. of placements in private children's homes are made outside the authority's area. 
 That is a real problem in London boroughs in particular. The majority of boroughs place the majority of their children in children's homes or in foster care outside the borough, in many cases very far away. We have seen many such cases in my constituency, with the problems that I have already outlined. Out of sight can mean out of mind. However many of the innovations of which the right hon. Lady is speaking come to pass, if the authority does not have control over the child's education, and if we are dealing with a placing authority far removed from a host authority, gaps will appear, and they will need to be addressed. 
 I think that the Minister made more of the amendments than I intended, saying that they could be construed as passing the buck to schools. I made it clear that there is a joint responsibility between the schools and the authority, whether that is the LEA or the social services department. We all have a joint—now a joined-up—responsibility, which I hope will be addressed. 
 The Minister has again trotted out the argument in which I never have great confidence: ''If we single out one group of people . . . ''This is a very special group to single out. That is why we have the Bill before us and why she has mentioned the clause. It is not prejudicial and we would not cause prejudice against non-looked-after children, against which I cautioned earlier, by getting schools to lay out clearly what their policy is, and whether they are fulfilling the undertakings that they should be fulfilling anyway. If there is greater transparency of information, there will be fewer grounds for infringement. 
 I appreciate the point that the Minister made in response. I am not convinced that the amendments are not required, and we may wish to return to the matter on Report to see whether she can give us any further assurances as to why they should not be accepted. In the interests of moving on, as we still have much of the Bill to debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 97, in
clause 44, page 31, line 21, at end add—
 '(2) In section 562(1) of the Education Act 1996 (amending 1944 Education Act), at end of paragraph insert, ''which includes a duty to promote the child's educational achievement''.'.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 201, in 
clause 44, page 31, line 21, at end add— 
 '( ) The governing body of a maintained school shall ensure that the school promotes the educational achievement of any pupil of the school that is looked after by the local authority.'. 
New clause 16—Duty of school governing body in relation to pupils in public care— 
 'The governing body of a community, foundation or voluntary school or a maintained nursery school shall designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in public care.'.

Annette Brooke: I am a little uncertain as to how I should proceed, because the Minister has addressed these points. I shall translate my uncertainty into brevity, and I will not require a long answer from the Minister.
 I had some concerns about the previous amendments, which is why I kept quiet. I was worried about the publication of an admissions policy that singled out looked-after children, even though I agreed with most of the points made by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham. While we are talking about admissions policies, may I mention in passing adopted children? They land suddenly in their new homes and their arrival might not fit in with the deadlines for applying to schools. If those schools are in an over-subscribed area, it will not help them; they are the very children who need to go to a local school to get to know people. In considering looked-after children, we should not forget about the next stage, adopted children. There was a tragic case in my area. 
 These amendments are partly along the lines of the previous ones in trying to put a duty upon the governing body. The Minister has given her answer. I 
 do not agree with her; I see it as a dual responsibility. However, we do not need to go through the arguments again. 
 I draw attention, which is probably rather foolhardy, to new clause 16, which was a thought of my own. In all the lobbying that we received on this issue, the point was made over and over that although the DFES guidance says that there should be a designated teacher, the actual designation of teachers throughout the country is very patchy. It therefore occurred to me that it would be better to attempt to put that on the statute book. The point is that there might be a teacher with a title, but in some schools there is an issue with having enough hours to do the necessary liaison.

Chris Mole: We have talked about the fact that looked-after children have complex needs, yet our special education needs legislation requires that all schools have an SEN co-ordinator, usually abbreviated to SENCO. It would be astounding if a school with children with special education needs such as behavioural problems was not picking up on a looked-after child with special education needs but was fulfilling the role which the hon. Lady suggests the new clause seeks to achieve. It therefore seems to me that such a new clause is probably superfluous to existing arrangements, which, so far as I can see from my experience as a school governor and a local councillor, are clearly working.

Annette Brooke: That is probably the point; the provision is patchy. Again, I can think of an example along the lines that we discussed earlier in which a child can be placed with a different foster carer at fairly short notice, but because of the shortage of suitable foster carers and the complexity of the child's needs, that carer can be some distance away. If no teacher has been given enough hours to liaise with the local authority, it is quite possible that the case might not be put strongly enough that the best interests of the child lie in their staying at the school if at all possible.
 That is why I tabled the new clause. The wording is more or less exactly as it is in the guidance. I am simply picking up on the point that the measure is not being implemented. This may be something that we need to flag up for the inspection system, and the new clause is a way of doing that. My amendments are probing, and I do not expect a very long answer from the Minister.

Hilton Dawson: Any Member of Parliament can meet and talk with looked-after young people, and those who have been looked after, on the third Wednesday of every month at 5 pm, which is the usual meeting time of the all-party group for children and young people in care. If hon. Members attend those meetings, they will be challenged enormously by highly intelligent, extremely able, very articulate and extraordinarily resilient young people who have been through experiences that would have floored anyone here. Some of them are achieving extraordinary things.
 Last February, my right hon. Friend the Minister presented certificates to achieving young people in care from all over the country. Many of them had achieved things such as settling down, being a little happier and 
 getting into school. Some of them were training to be barristers and doctors. Several of them were poets, and one of them was an extraordinary singer and musician. 
 There is nothing wrong with children and young people who are looked after. It is the local authorities—the corporate parents—who have comprehensively failed them at every turn. We will get no further forward until we provide stability, and until everyone working for any local authority, not only those who work in social services or education, takes seriously and enjoys their corporate parenting responsibilities towards these children and young people. 
 My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: it should not be beyond the ability of people of good will at all levels in Government, local authorities and elsewhere to sort out the problem of 60,000 looked-after children, and it should be sorted out.

Margaret Hodge: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The awards that he mentioned were made to children and young people who, against the odds, throughout their childhood and into adulthood, achieved a tremendous amount. I have no doubt that they will make an enormous contribution to society as adults. What is astonishing is finding out from those individuals how often they changed homes and were rejected or bullied at school, but they survived everything, which shows how strong they had to be. That is why we should have great confidence in them, and why the BBC programme on the subject last year was so welcome.
 I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that children who are adopted find it difficult to gain admission to schools, especially when they move into an area. Anyone who moves into an area with a popular, over-subscribed school knows that that is difficult. I am sure that the hon. Lady's surgery is, like mine, full of people who say, ''I moved into the area because I thought I could get my kid into that school,'' but who found that the school was over-subscribed and that the purpose of their move had failed. It is a difficult problem and we have to balance rights and interests. I could not agree more that the interests of looked-after children should be at the top of our list. 
 I was slightly puzzled earlier because we took the amendments, especially amendment No. 97, to refer to securing the education of looked-after children in custody, which the hon. Lady clearly did not intend. There was a disagreement about the interpretation of the amendment. Children in custody are the responsibility of the Prison Service, which has a statutory duty to ensure that they participate in education and training courses for at least 15 hours in a normal working week. I am pleased to tell the Committee that children in prison have on average 24 hours a week of education and training. 
 When I visit children in prison I am aware that the problem is largely about stability. Children in youth offending institutions and other such establishments stay for about two weeks, and given that instability it 
 is difficult to ensure that they are properly looked after. We are developing a specification with the Youth Justice Board and the Learning and Skills Council to put into place enhanced arrangements for looked-after children. 
 I sympathise with the intentions behind amendment No. 201 and new clause 16. Schools have a crucial role in the lives of looked-after children, but the amendments are unnecessary and inappropriate, as they would place a duty on local authority governing bodies. The local authority is the corporate parent that holds the key to improving young people's educational achievements. 
 On new clause 16, our guidance document recommended that schools designate a teacher to act as a resource and advocate for children and young people in care. The evidence that we have got back suggests that most schools now have a designated teacher in place. It is usually the head teacher, which is to be welcomed, the deputy head or, in some cases, the inclusion co-ordinator. I would not want to call the hon. Lady a Stalinist, but placing on every school a formal statutory duty to have a designated teacher, so that even the smallest rural primary school had to have one, would be an unnecessary, inappropriate and somewhat bureaucratic step, and I think that she shares our desire to lift as much of the bureaucratic burden from schools as we can. 
 I am happy to repeat the assurance given by my noble Friend Baroness Ashton in the House of Lords that the guidance that we shall publish in due course—to ensure that local authorities are clear about what the duty placed on them will mean in practice—will reinforce the importance of the designated teacher's role. We also made it clear in earlier debates that our guidance on inter-agency co-operation to improve the well-being of children will make it clear that front-line providers such as schools should be closely involved in the arrangements. 
 In light of those arguments, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for reminding me that I intended to pursue an amendment about education in prisons, but I do not want to debate it at this time, because it is worthy of greater attention. Interestingly, the Select Committee on Education and Skills is considering prison education, and the all-party parliamentary group also seems to have been doing important work in that regard. I shall probably return to that issue. I am happy not to pursue the amendments at this stage. All in all, over these last two groups, we have had some useful discussions, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Ascertaining children's wishes

Tim Loughton: I beg to move amendment No. 48, in
clause 45, page 31, line 29, after 'wishes', insert 'and feelings'.

Marion Roe: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
 No. 49, in 
clause 45, page 31, line 32, after 'wishes', insert 'and feelings'. 
No. 115, in 
clause 45, page 31, line 33, at end insert— 
 '( ) In section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority's duty to investigate) after subsection 4(b) insert— 
 ''(c) to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings.''. 
 ( ) In section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority's duty to investigate) after subsection 8 insert— 
 ''(8A) Where, as a result of complying with this section, a local authority conclude that they should take action to safeguard or promote the child's welfare they shall give due consideration, having regard to his age and understanding, to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.'' 
 ( ) In section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority's duty to investigate) after subsection 12 insert— 
 ''(13) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring local authorities safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare under this section to record such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.''.'.

Tim Loughton: We are getting there. Clause 45 deals with ascertaining children's wishes, to which we wish to add feelings. Our arguments are not new; they were well rehearsed in another place and have great support from the Children's Society, in particular.
 I think that we all welcomed the amendments that the Government introduced on Report in the House of Lords to place a statutory duty on local authorities to ascertain the children's wishes when providing services to ''children in need'' under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 form a partnership with amendment No. 115, in the name of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. They would amend the clause to require local authorities, as far as is reasonably practicable, to give due consideration to children's feelings, as well as their wishes, in proceedings under section 17. 
 That is particularly important for younger children and those living in adverse circumstances. Children might not know what they do or do not want to happen, but they will always know how they feel. Ascertaining whether a child is scared, anxious or confused is critical to providing them with appropriate services and protections. 
 In the House of Lords, Baroness Ashton was concerned about consistency with the current legislation and, in particular, the discrepancy that might be created between sections 17 and 20 of the 1989 Act. Only one aspect of that child care legislation refers to wishes without feelings. That is section 20(6), relating to the provision of accommodation, which does not require local authorities to ascertain the children's feelings. However, those children are covered under section 22(4) as looked-after children, the definition of whom includes a child who is being provided with accommodation under section 20, and 
 therefore their feelings must be given due consideration. Unless the Bill is amended, children being provided with services under section 17 will be the only children whose feelings do not have to be given due consideration under the statutory provisions. 
 The amendment would especially improve the situation of disabled children and young children, the two groups who are least likely to be included in decision making. Nearly all high-profile child death inquiries have concerned children under the age of 10. One of the most consistent themes in inquiry reports is the complete invisibility of the child's wishes and feelings. 
 It is clear that, with regard to the arguments that were taken on board in the House of Lords, the Children's Society has worked to provide the assurances as to why the process can now be completed, and feelings be added to wishes in clause 45. Surely now it is time for the law to put children's wishes and feelings where they belong—at the heart of all our efforts to protect them and help them to lead happy, fulfilled lives. 
 This is a pretty innocuous amendment for the Government to accept. No doubt I will be told that it is not framed in parliamentary language. However, the intent is clear and I would hope that, at the very least, the Minister will offer to take it away and come back with it redrafted by her phalanx of parliamentary draftsmen so that it can be included for consideration in later proceedings on the Bill.

Hilton Dawson: Amendment No. 115, in my name and those of others, aims to go beyond the Government's intentions in clause 45, and to extend the consideration of the child's wishes and feelings to child protection investigations under section 47 of the 1989 Act. There is an obvious practical difficulty: we have discussed the fact that social workers sometimes have to take emergency or urgent action. However, we have also spoken about investigations that require the utmost sensitivity and consideration, the most careful listening to children, and a high awareness of the child's perspective on what is happening to them. In such a case, ''what is happening to them'' would involve an allegation that they were suffering significant harm. This is an important amendment and we palpably do not have enough time to do it justice. However, I hope that my right hon. Friend is able to respond positively.

Margaret Hodge: I can give the assurance that hon. Members seek. We will get the experts drafting, so that we can have the required consistency in the legislation. If the Committee will allow me to do so, I will table the relevant amendments on Report.

Tim Loughton: That is a bit of a result. With seven minutes to go, we might have scored a hit. I am delighted that the Minister has taken the matter on board, and I look forward enormously to being able to vote with her, or even to not having to force a vote,
 when we come to these sensible amendments on Report. With a certain chuffedness, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Julie Morgan: On a point of order, Dame Marion. I understand that all the new clauses will be taken together at the end of the sitting. While there is still time, I want to register my objection to new clause 27, as I will not have the opportunity to vote on it separately.

Marion Roe: The hon. Lady is right; the new clauses cannot be taken separately.
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Palmer: I very much welcome clause 45. We have come to feel that people who draw on social services or benefits are customers rather than people to whom we do things. In the same way, we need to recognise that work with children is likely to succeed only if children feel part of the process. We have all seen examples of that in our local communities, and certainly with teenagers; efforts to help them work only if they feel part of the effort. It is surprising how eloquent and definite are children's feelings, even at a younger age.
 What is the significance of the phrase 
''and consistent with the child's welfare''? 
It suggests that there could be circumstances in which it would be practicable to ascertain a child's wishes, but that it would not be consistent with the child's welfare. I have great difficulty in imagining what those circumstances would be. If it is practicable, we should ascertain the child's welfare. I have not tabled an amendment, but I hope that the Minister can clarify that point.

Margaret Hodge: I am racking my brains. One difficulty that comes to mind is that of a child who is abused by the parents but still wants to remain with them. The issue is incredibly complex and difficult. In such situations, the wishes of the child may be at odds with safeguarding its welfare. I am told that although it is important to ascertain and take account of a child's wishes, we should not be driven by it. The child may not know what it wants—what is best for them—and that can cause difficulties.

Nick Palmer: What the Minister said does not relate to the phrase
''and consistent with the child's welfare''. 
She said that we might choose to disregard the child's wishes because they are not really in its interests. The question is whether it would be inconsistent with the child's welfare even to ask the child what are its wishes.

Margaret Hodge: Again, my hon. Friend is correct. It might be distressing in some circumstances to ask the child about its wishes. In some instances, it may be difficult to ascertain the child's wishes yet protect its welfare.

Marion Roe: I believe that the Minister wishes to raise a point of order.

Margaret Hodge: On a point of order, Dame Marion. I am looking at the time: the sitting is drawing to an end. Although I know that hon. Members want to debate other issues, they will be able to do so on Report.
 I express my thanks, Dame Marion, to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton, for chairing the Committee in such an admirable way. You have both been fair and shown an interest in the proceedings, yet at times you must have thought that we were droning on and on. We are extremely grateful. 
 I thank my hon. Friends on the Back Benches, who have sat patiently through our sittings and given me huge support. I thank my fellow Ministers; I know that they lead busy lives. I thank the Opposition—both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members—and, although he is not in his seat, I also thank the Member who represents the Welsh Nationalists. 
 I also thank Hansard for listening so carefully; the Clerks and the other officials of the House; my officials, who have done a stunning job; and the police officers who ensured that we were able to carry out our work effectively. 
 The Bill is crucial; it is the legislative spine for the transformation of services. I thank hon. Members for all that they have done. 
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [6 November 2003] and the Order of the Committee [12 October], as amended, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Miscellaneous amendments for Parts 2 and 3

Amendment made: No. 157, in 
clause 47, page 32, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Question put, That clause 47, as amended, and clauses 48 to 51 stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 4.

Clause 47, as amended, and clauses 48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 184, in 
clause 52, page 33, line 20, leave out 'section 2(10)' and insert 
 'section (care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities)'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 52, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Regulations and orders

Amendment made: No. 208, in 
clause 53, page 34, line 26, after 'under', insert 'section 8(1)(ca) or'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Commencement

Amendments made: No. 209, in 
clause 54, page 34, line 36, at end insert 
 'subject to subsections (3A) and (3B). 
 (3A) The Assembly must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before making provision under subsection (3) in relation to section 21(4)(a) to (c) or 25(3)(a) to (c), (f) or (g). 
 (3B) In section 23, the following provisions come into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State after consulting the Assembly— 
 (a) subsection (1)(d) to (g); 
 (b) subsection (2), so far as relating to the persons and bodies referred to in subsection (1)(d) to (g); 
 (c) subsection (5).'. 
No. 158, in 
clause 54, page 35, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) section (publication of material relating to legal proceedings) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Lord Chancellor;'. 
No. 159, in 
clause 54, page 35, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) section (disclosure of information by Inland Revenue) comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.' 
No. 185, in
clause 54, page 35, line 11, at end insert— 
 '( ) section (Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry) comes into force in accordance with provision made by order by the Assembly;'. 
No. 160, in 
clause 54, page 35, line 12, at end insert 
 'except that Schedule (repeals) comes into force in accordance with the commencement provisions set out in that Schedule'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 54, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Extent

Amendments made: No. 186, in 
clause 55, page 35, line 16, leave out '5' and insert '4'. 
No. 187, in 
clause 55, page 35, line 16, at end insert— 
 '( ) In Part 5— 
 (a) sections 37 to 51, (Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry) and (publication of material relating to legal proceedings) extend to England and Wales only; 
 (b) section (disclosure of information by Inland Revenue) extends to the whole of the United Kingdom.'. 
No. 188, in 
clause 55, page 35, line 17, leave out subsection (3) and insert— 
 '(3) In this Part— 
 (a) section (repeals) and Schedule (repeals) extend to England and Wales only; and 
 (b) the remaining provisions extend to the whole of the United Kingdom.'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 55, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - Short title

Amendment made: No. 161, in 
clause 56, page 35, line 20, leave out subsection (2).—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Clause 56, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 20 - Children and young people's plans: England

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations require a children's services authority in England from time to time to prepare and publish a plan setting out the authority's strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and relevant young persons. 
 (2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision as to— 
 (a) the matters to be dealt with in a plan under this section; 
 (b) the period to which a plan under this section is to relate; 
 (c) when and how a plan under this section must be published; 
 (d) keeping a plan under this section under review; 
 (e) consultation to be carried out during preparation of a plan under this section. 
 (3) The matters for which provision may be made under subsection (2)(a) include in particular— 
 (a) the arrangements made or to be made under section 7 by a children's services authority in England;
 (b) the strategy or proposals in relation to children and relevant young persons of any person or body with whom a children's services authority in England makes or proposes to make such arrangements. 
 (4) The power to make regulations conferred by this section shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 (c.26), be regarded as included among the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of that section. 
 (5) In this section ''relevant young persons'' means persons, other than children, in relation to whom arrangements under section 7 may be made.'.

New Clause 21 - Children and young people's plans: Wales

'(1) The Assembly may by regulations require a children's services authority in Wales from time to time to prepare and publish a plan setting out the authority's strategy for discharging their functions in relation to children and relevant young persons. 
 (2) Regulations under this section may in particular make provision as to— 
 (a) the matters to be dealt with in a plan under this section; 
 (b) the period to which a plan under this section is to relate; 
 (c) when and how a plan under this section must be published; 
 (d) keeping a plan under this section under review; 
 (e) consultation to be carried out before a plan under this section is published; 
 (f) implementation of a plan under this section. 
 (3) The matters for which provision may be made under subsection (2)(a) include in particular— 
 (a) the arrangements made or to be made under section 21 by a children's services authority in Wales; 
 (b) the strategy or proposals in relation to children and relevant young persons of any person or body with whom a children's services authority in Wales makes or proposes to make such arrangements. 
 (4) Regulations under this section may require a children's services authority in Wales to obtain the Assembly's approval before publishing a plan under this section; and may provide that the Assembly may modify a plan before approving it. 
 (5) A children's services authority in Wales must have regard to any guidance given to them by the Assembly in relation to how they are to discharge their functions under regulations under this section. 
 (6) In this section ''relevant young persons'' means the persons, in addition to children, in relation to whom arrangements under section 21 may be made.'.

New Clause 22 - Inspection

'(1) Chapter 6 of Part 2 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 (c.43) (functions of the Assembly in relation to social services) shall apply as if anything done by a children's services authority in Wales in the exercise of functions to which this section applies were a Welsh local authority social service within the meaning of that Part. 
 (2) This section applies to the following functions of a children's services authority— 
 (a) the authority's functions under section 21 or (children and young people's plans: Wales), except so far as relating to education, training or youth support services (within the meaning of section 123 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21)); 
 (b) the authority's functions under section 23; 
 (c) any function conferred on the authority under section 24.'.

New Clause 23 - Social services committees

'(1) Sections 2 to 5 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 (c.42) (social services committees) shall cease to have effect. 
 (2) In Schedule 1 to that Act (enactments conferring functions assigned to social services committees), for the heading substitute ''SOCIAL SERVICES FUNCTIONS''. 
 (3) In section 63(8) of the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 (c.46) (instruction), in paragraph (a) of the definition of ''relevant enactments'', for the words from ''for the time being'' to ''section 2'' substitute ''are social services functions within the meaning''. 
 (4) In Schedule 1 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c.42) (political balance on committees), in paragraph 4(1), in paragraph (a) of the definition of ''ordinary committee'', for the words from ''the authority's'' to ''any other committee'' substitute ''any committee''. 
 (5) In section 102 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c.22) (social services functions)— 
 (a) omit subsection (1); 
 (b) in subsection (2), for ''that Act'' substitute ''the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970''.'.

New Clause 24 - Publication of material relating to legal proceedings

'(1) In section 97(2) of the Children Act 1989 (c.41) (privacy for children involved in certain proceedings), after ''publish'' insert ''to the public at large or any section of the public''. 
 (2) In section 12(4) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 (c.65) (publication of information relating to proceedings in private), at the end insert ''(and in particular where the publication is not so punishable by reason of being authorised by rules of court)''. 
 (3) In section 66 of the Adoption Act 1976 (c.36) (rules of procedure), after subsection (5) insert— 
 ''(5A) Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings held in private involving children.'' 
 (4) In section 145(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (c.43) (rules: supplementary), after paragraph (g) insert— 
 ''(ga) authorising, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings referred to in section 12(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 which are held in private;''. 
 (5) In section 40(4) of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 (c.42) (family proceedings rules), in paragraph (a) after ''County Courts Act 1984;'' insert— 
 ''(aa) authorise, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to family proceedings held in private;''. 
 (6) In section 141 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c.38) (rules of procedure) at the end insert— 
 ''(6) Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to proceedings held in private involving children.'' 
 (7) In section 76 of the Courts Act 2003 (c.39) (Family Procedure Rules: further provision) after subsection (2) insert— 
 ''(2A) Family Procedure Rules may, for the purposes of the law relating to contempt of court, authorise the publication in such circumstances as may be specified of information relating to family proceedings held in private.''.'.

New Clause 25 Disclosure of information by Inland Revenue - Disclosure of information by Inland Revenue

'(1) In Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c.21) (use and disclosure of information), after paragraph 10 insert— 
 ''Provision of information by Board for purposes relating to welfare of children 
 10A (1) This paragraph applies to information, other than information relating to a person's income, which is held for the purposes of functions relating to tax credits, child benefit or guardian's allowance— 
jf13Ý(a) by the Board, or 
 (b) by a person providing services to the Board, in connection with the provision of those services. 
 (2) Information to which this paragraph applies may be supplied to— 
 (a) a local authority in England and Wales for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Part 5 of the Children Act 1989 relating to the welfare of a child; 
 (b) a local authority in Scotland for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 relating to the welfare of a child; 
 (c) an authority in Northern Ireland for use for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation under Part 6 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I.2)) relating to the welfare of a child. 
 (3) Information supplied under this paragraph is not to be supplied by the recipient to any other person or body unless it is supplied— 
 (a) for the purpose of any enquiry or investigation referred to in sub-paragraph (2) above, 
 (b) for the purpose of civil or criminal proceedings, or 
 (c) where paragraph (a) or (b) does not apply, to a person to whom the information could be supplied directly by or under the authority of the Board. 
 (4) Information may not be supplied under sub-paragraph (3)(b) or (c) without the authority of the Board. 
 (5) A person commits an offence if he discloses information supplied to him under this paragraph unless the disclosure is made— 
 (a) in accordance with sub-paragraph (3), 
 (b) in accordance with an enactment or an order of a court, 
 (c) with consent given by or on behalf of the person to whom the information relates, or 
 (d) in such a way as to prevent the identification of the person to whom it relates. 
 (6) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under sub-paragraph (5) to prove that he reasonably believed that his disclosure was lawful. 
 (7) A person guilty of an offence under sub-paragraph (5) is liable— 
 (a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both; 
 (b) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both; 
 (c) on summary conviction in Scotland or Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both. 
 (8) In sub-paragraph (2) ''child'' means a person under the age of eighteen and— 
 (a) in paragraph (a), ''local authority'' has the meaning given by section 105(1) of the Children Act 1989; 
 (b) in paragraph (b), ''local authority'' has the meaning given by section 93(1) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995; and
 (c) in paragraph (c), ''authority'' has the meaning given by Article 2 of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/755 (N.I.2)). 
 (9) The reference to an enactment in sub-paragraph (5)(b) includes a reference to an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'' 
 (2) In relation to an offence committed under sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 10A of Schedule 5 to the Tax Credits Act 2002 (c.21) (as inserted by subsection (1) above) before the commencement of section 154 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the reference in sub-paragraph (7)(b) of that paragraph to twelve months shall be read as a reference to six months.'.

New Clause 26 - Repeals

'The enactments specified in Schedule (repeals) are repealed to the extent specified.'.

New Clause 27 - Functions of Commissioner in Wales

'(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in Wales, except in so far as relating to any matter falling within the remit of the Children's Commissioner for Wales under section 72B, 73 or 74 of the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14). 
 (2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section. 
 (3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Children's Commissioner for Wales. 
 (4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Wales raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children, other than issues relating to a matter referred to in subsection (1) above, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues. 
 (5) Subsections (2) to (7) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above. 
 (6) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Wales raises issues of relevance to other children, other than issues relating to a matter referred to in subsection (1) above, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case. 
 (7) Subsections (2) to (7) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (6) above.'.

New Clause 28 - Functions of Commissioner in Scotland

'(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting awareness of the views and interests of children in Scotland in relation to reserved matters. 
 (2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section. 
 (3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Commissioner for Children and Young People in Scotland.
 (4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Scotland raises issues of public policy of relevance to other children in relation to a reserved matter, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues. 
 (5) Subsections (2) to (6A) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above. 
 (6) Subsections (3) to (5) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (4) above with the substitution of references to the Children's Commissioner for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry. 
 (7) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Scotland raises issues of relevance to other children in relation to a reserved matter, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case. 
 (8) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (7) above. 
 (9) Subsections (3) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (c.65) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (7) above with the substitution (notwithstanding the provisions of section 53 of the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46) (general transfer of functions to the Scottish Ministers)) of references to the Secretary of State for references to the Minister. 
 (10) In this section, ''reserved matter'' has the same meaning as in the Scotland Act 1998 (c.46) (see section 30 of and Schedule 5 to that Act).'.

New Clause 29 - Functions of Commissioner in Northern Ireland

'(1) The Children's Commissioner has the function of promoting the views and interests of children in Northern Ireland in relation to excepted matters. 
 (2) Subsections (2) to (9) of section 2 apply in relation to the function of the Children's Commissioner under subsection (1) above as in relation to his function under that section. 
 (3) In discharging his function under subsection (1) above the Children's Commissioner must take account of the views of, and any work undertaken by, the Commissioner for Children and Young People for Northern Ireland. 
 (4) Where the Children's Commissioner considers that the case of an individual child in Northern Ireland raises issues of public policy which are of relevance to other children in relation to an excepted matter, he may hold an inquiry into that case for the purpose of investigating and making recommendations about those issues. 
 (5) Subsections (2) to (6A) of section 4 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (4) above. 
 (6) Paragraphs 2 to 5 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14)) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (4) above with the substitution of references to the Children's Commissioner for references to the person appointed to hold the inquiry. 
 (7) Where the Secretary of State considers that the case of an individual child in Northern Ireland raises issues of relevance to other children in relation to an excepted matter, he may direct the Children's Commissioner to hold an inquiry into that case.
 (8) Subsections (2) to (6) of section 5 apply in relation to an inquiry under subsection (7) above. 
 (9) Paragraphs 2 to 8 of Schedule 8 to the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I. 1972/1265 (N.I.14)) apply for the purposes of an inquiry under subsection (7) above with the substitution of references to the Secretary of State for references to the Ministry. 
 (10) In this section, ''excepted matter'' has the same meaning as in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47).'.

New Clause 30 - Annual reports

'(1) As soon as possible after the end of each financial year the Children's Commissioner must make a report on— 
 (a) the way in which he has discharged his functions under this Part, other than functions of holding inquiries; 
 (b) what he has found in the course of exercising those functions during the year; and 
 (c) the matters he intends to consider or research in the next financial year. 
 (2) The Children's Commissioner must in particular under subsection (1)(a) include an account of the steps taken by him to involve in the discharge of the functions referred to in that provision the children in relation to whom those functions are exercised. 
 (3) Where the Children's Commissioner makes a report under this section— 
 (a) he must send a copy to the Secretary of State; and 
 (b) the Secretary of State must as soon as possible lay a copy before each House of Parliament. 
 (4) The Children's Commissioner must publish a report under this section as soon as possible after the Secretary of State has laid it before each House of Parliament. 
 (5) The Children's Commissioner must also, to the extent that he considers appropriate, publish any report made under this section in a version which is suitable for children. 
 (6) In this section, ''financial year'' has the same meaning as in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1.'.

New Clause 31 - Care leavers and young persons with learning disabilities

'(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Part, other than section 2(8) and (9). 
 (2) Any reference to a child includes, in addition to a person under the age of 18, a person aged 18, 19 or 20 who— 
 (a) has been looked after by a local authority at any time after attaining the age of 16; or 
 (b) has a learning disability. 
 (3) For the purposes of subsection (2)— 
 a person is ''looked after by a local authority'' if— 
 (a) for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 (c.41), he is looked after by a local authority in England and Wales; 
 (b) for the purposes of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 (c.36), he is looked after by a local authority in Scotland; 
 (c) for the purposes of the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I.1995/755 (N.I.2)), he is looked after by an authority in Northern Ireland; 
 ''learning disability'' means a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which induces significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning.'.
New Clause 32 
 Children's Commissioner for Wales: powers of entry 
 'In the Care Standards Act 2000 (c.14), in section 76 (further functions of Children's Commissioner for Wales), at the end insert— 
 ''(8) The Commissioner or a person authorised by him may for the purposes of any function of the Commissioner under section 72B or 73 or subsection (4) of this section at any reasonable time— 
 (a) enter any premises, other than a private dwelling, for the purposes of interviewing any child accommodated or cared for there; and 
 (b) if the child consents, interview the child in private.''.'. 
 —[Margaret Hodge.] 
 New clauses 20 to 32 brought up, and read the First time. 
 Motion made, and Question put, That new clauses 20 to 32 be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 2.

New clauses 20 to 32 brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
 New schedule 'Repeals  Plans   Short title and chapter  Extent of repealChildren Act 1989 (c.41)  In Schedule 2, paragraph 1A.  Education Act 1996 (c.56)  Section 527A. Education Act 1997 (c.44)  Section 9. School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (c.31)  Section 2.  Sections 6 and 7.  Sections 26 to 26B.  In section 27(2), the words ''section 26,''.Section 119(5)(b) and the preceding ''and''.  Sections 120 and 121.  In Schedule 6— paragraph 3(4)(b) and the preceding ''and'';  paragraph 8(4).  In Schedule 30, paragraph 144.  Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c.21)  In Schedule 7—  paragraph 35(2)(b);  paragraph 42(2)(a).  In Schedule 9, paragraphs 80 and 81.  Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c.38)  Section 5.  Education Act 2002 (c.32)  In section 150—  subsections (2) to (4);  in subsection (5), the words from ''and early years development plans'' to ''childcare plans''''.  These repeals come into force—  (a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;  (b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.

New schedule

'Repeals  Plans

Child minding and daycare   Short title and chapter  Extent of repeal   Children Act 1989 (c.41)  In section 79F(1) and (2), paragraph (b) and the preceding ''and''.  In section 79G(2), the words ''under section 79F(3)''.  In Schedule 9A—  in paragraph 4(3A)(b), the words ''to his registration'';  in paragraph 4(4), the words '', or have any financial interest in,'';  in the heading before paragraph 7, the word ''Annual''.  These repeals come into force—   (a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;   (b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.Inspection of local education authorities   Short title and chapter  Extent of repealDisability Discrimination Act 1995 (c.50)  Section 28D(6).   This repeal comes into force—   (a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;   (b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly. Social services committees and departments

Child minding and daycare - Inspection of local education authorities - Social services committees and departments

section 98(3) (in the words substituted by that provision).   Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c.6)  The words ''social services department'' in—  section 46(5)(a) and (b);  section 69(4)(b), (6)(a) and (10)(a);  section 73(5);  section 74(5)(b) and (7)(a);  section 103(3)(b) and (5)(a);  section 162(2)(a) and (b).   Local Government Act 2000 (c.22)  Section 102(1).   Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 (c.43)  In section 64(6), in the definition of ''appropriate adult'', the words ''social services department''.   Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)  The words ''social services department'' in—  section 158(2)(b);  section 161(8)(b);  section 199(4)(b);  paragraph 5(4) of Schedule 38 (in the words substituted by that provision).   These repeals come into force—   (a) so far as relating to England, in accordance with provision made by order by the Secretary of State;   (b) so far as relating to Wales, in accordance with provision so made by the Assembly.Reasonable punishment  Short title and chapter  Extent of repeal  Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (c.12)  Section 1(7).  This repeal comes into force at the same time as section 49. Child safety ordersShort title and chapter  Extent of repeal   Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37)  Section 12(6)(a) and (7).  These repeals come into force at the same time as section 51.'.  [Margaret Hodge.]

Reasonable punishment - Child safety orders

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. 
 Amendment made: No. 189, in 
title, line 7, leave out
'and about child safety orders'
 and add 
', child safety orders, the Children's Commissioner for Wales, the publication of material relating to children involved in certain legal proceedings and the disclosure by the Inland Revenue of information relating to children'.—[Margaret Hodge.] 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at seven minutes past Five o'clock. 
 Roe, Dame Marion (Chairman)  Brooke, Mrs.  Clappison, Mr.  Coaker, Vernon  Dawson, Mr.  Fitzsimons, Mrs.  Hodge, Margaret  Irranca-Davies, Huw  Ladyman, Dr.  Laing, Mrs.  Loughton, Tim  McDonagh, Siobhain  Mole, Mr.  Morgan, Julie  Munn, Ms  Palmer, Dr.  Tami, Mark  Touhig, Mr.  Williams, Hywel  Williams, Mr. Roger